Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Eliot, actually the HRPC RG does attract subject matter experts who speak
at HRPC sessions and provide useful input. I’ve gotten some real benefit
from these presenters. I do wish they would participate in the process.

The master/slave thing was approached as many workplace harassment
incidents are: with confidential complaints. This was a real problem that
was taken appropriately seriously, and I think the various communities that
responded did so appropriately. Your characterization of the situation is
unfortunate.

Of course it’s also understandable, because this led to the question of
whether we should look at other terminology to see if it has the same
problem, with zero data to back up such a quest. I agree that that is a
fool’s errand.

The reason we are having this particular flame war has a lot to do with the
lack of crispness of the question that was asked of the IETF, and not much
to do with the qualifications of the participants in the RG.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:12 AM Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I strongly agree, and would go further.
>
> As I see it, the HRPC suffers fundamental problems from both participation
> and its charter.
>
> The charter itself, in my opinion, displays a facile understanding of
> human rights.  It includes the statement:
>
> * To expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus
> on
> the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
>
> That belies the need to balance rights contained in frameworks such as the
> UDHR, as you and others including myself have repeatedly noted.  We have
> largely been ignored.  The poor interdisciplinary composition of the group
> as well as its sole output reflects this regrettable constraint.
>
> In this latest debacle, a position was put forth that is largely
> unsubstantiated.  The only research I as a layperson have found finds that
> harm related to offensive language is contextually determined.[1]  Surely
> it's the case that a choice of words *can* harm, and maybe even harm
> human rights. However, the HRPC appears to not have the expertise either in
> psychology or linguistics to even have a serious discussion about language,
> and the co-chair has attempted to stifle debate.  The research group is not
> having a discussion that reflects the results or ongoing work of any
> research.
>
> As you say, there really are serious human rights issues relating to our
> technology that we as a community could and should address.  Unfortunately,
> so far as I can tell, there are no criminologists, members from the law
> enforcement community, or human rights experts from interested
> governments.  While it's always difficult to engage interdisciplinary
> experts in the HRPC, the sole focus on a subset of human rights clearly
> presents an additional obstacle. Research *is* happening, but it is
> happening elsewhere and with zero collaboration/coordination from HRPC.[2]
>
> If this entire debate over master/slave is about inclusiveness, nothing
> could harm that objective more than advocacy of particular political
> positions.  Sadly, that is precisely what focusing on a small subset of
> rights has led to.  The HRPC should either be rechartered or closed.
> Because I am skeptical we can really attract the right participants, *I
> lean toward closure*.
>
> Eliot
>
> [1] Jay, T. (2009). Do offensive words harm people? Psychology, Public
> Policy, and Law, 15(2), 81-101.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015646
> [2] Savage, C., "Justice Dept. Revives Push to Mandate a Way to Unlock
> Phones", The New York Times, 24 Mar 2018,
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/us/politics/unlock-phones-encryption.html
>
>
> On 21.09.18 01:34, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> you write:
>
> In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like
> Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology
> that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.
>
> If this is really the best that HRPC can do, I would suggest that it's
> time for the IRTF to consider whether to shut it down.
>
> When I've gone to HRPC sessions, I have heard endless papers about
> more or less plausible threats to freedom of expression or to
> anonymous speech (which is not the same thing.)  More than once I have
> stood up at HRPC sessions and noted that the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights has thirty articles, and none of the discussion deals
> with more than two of them.  The chairs have assured me that they are
> equally interested in the other rights, but the evidence of that is
> pretty thin.
>
> What about article 12, protection agaisnt attacks on honor and
> repuation?  What is HRPC doing about trolling and other online
> attacks?
>
> Or article 17, nobody shall be arbitrariy deprived of his property?
> What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to enable
> phishing and other online theft?
>
> Or article 23, the right to rest and leisure?  What is HRPC doing to
> keep our protocols from being used to put people on a 24 hour
> electronic leash?
>
> Instead, we get this stuff.  Even if you think that the language in
> our RFCs is problematic, which for the most part I don't, I am
> confident that no RFC has ever enslaved anyone, nor put anyone on a
> secret list that kept them from working (the actual meaning of
> blacklist for people who know their history.)
>
> There are real human rights problems that HRPC could engage with, but
> don't.  They need to make up their mind whether they're serious.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>
>
>